A. At the time of misunderstanding the fact, the Defendant asked an acting driver to drive the vehicle, and as an acting driver was unable to drive the vehicle due to snow he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he gets off, and he only left the vehicle, and the Defendant did not drive the vehicle while drunk.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the lectures of compliance driving 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of facts in a criminal trial should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant should be determined as a result of indirect evidence, unless such doubt is necessarily formed by direct evidence, and it is formed by indirect evidence unless it violates the empirical and logical rules. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value as to the crime individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the whole evidence, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the crime, and if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the crime as a whole, it can be found that the crime was committed by the police officer at the time of stopping on the road (Supreme Court Decisions 96Do1783, Nov. 13, 198; 9Do3273, Oct. 22, 199). 21, etc.